Sociocultural and Demographic Factors Predict Readmissions for General Surgery Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Readmission is a poor outcome for both patients and healthcare systems. The association of certain sociocultural and demographic characteristics with likelihood of readmission is uncertain in general surgical patients. METHOD: A multi-centre retrospective cohort study of consecutive unique individuals who survived to discharge during general surgical admissions was conducted. Sociocultural and demographic variables were evaluated alongside clinical parameters (considered both as raw values and their proportion of change in the 1-2 days prior to admission) for their association with 7 and 30 days readmission using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 12,701 individuals included, with 304 (2.4%) individuals readmitted within 7 days, and 921 (7.3%) readmitted within 30 days. When incorporating absolute values of clinical parameters in the model, age was the only variable significantly associated with 7-day readmission, and primary language and presence of religion were the only variables significantly associated with 30-day readmission. When incorporating change in clinical parameters between the 1-2 days prior to discharge, primary language and religion were predictive of 30-day readmission. When controlling for changes in clinical parameters, only higher comorbidity burden (represented by higher Charlson comorbidity index score) was associated with increased likelihood of 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Sociocultural and demographic patient factors such as primary language, presence of religion, age, and comorbidity burden predict the likelihood of 7 and 30-day hospital readmission after general surgery. These findings support early implementation a postoperative care model that integrates all biopsychosocial domains across multiple disciplines of healthcare.

Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Does size matter? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The prognostic capacity of positive surgical margins (PSM) for biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unclear, with inconsistent findings across published studies. We aimed to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis exploring the impact of Positive surgical margin length on biochemical recurrence in men after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: A search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the protocol was registered in advance (PROSPERO: CRD42020195908). This meta-analysis included 16 studies with BCR as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Studies used various dichotomised thresholds for PSM length. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed using the reported multivariable hazard ratio (Continuous, 3, and 1 mm PSM length). PSM length (continuous) was independently associated with an increased risk of BCR (7 studies, HR 1.04 (CI 1.02-1.05), I2 = 8% p < 0.05). PSM length greater than 3 mm conferred a higher risk of BCR compared to less than 3 mm (4 studies, HR 1.99 (1.54-2.58) I2 = 0%, p < 0.05). There was also an increased risk of BCR associated with PSM length of less than 1 mm compared to negative surgical margins (3 studies, HR 1.46 (1.05-2.04), I2 = 0%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: PSM length is independently prognostic for BCR after radical prostatectomy. Further long-term studies are needed to estimate the impact on systemic progression.

Triceps mass - A rare presentation of renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can commonly metastasize to the liver, lungs, bones and brain. We herein report a rare presentation of oligometastatic RCC with isolated synchronous metastasis to the triceps. A 44-year-old male presented with an enlarging mass involving the right triceps. A biopsy revealed features consistent with metastatic clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Subsequent computed tomography (CT) Imaging demonstrated a 6 cm right renal mass. He underwent a right laparoscopic radical nephrectomy which revealed a tumour stage 1b ISUP Grade 2 ccRCC. Clinicians should have a degree of suspicion for a metastatic lesion for an enlarging soft tissue mass.

The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on elective urological procedures in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the changes in elective private urological procedures in Australia during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Data were extracted from publicly available datasets from Medicare Benefits Schedule using item numbers assigned to each commonly performed urological intervention. These procedures were divided into three groups: Oncological therapeutic, diagnostic, and non-oncological therapeutic procedures. A smoothing model, based on the historic procedure numbers from 2017 to 2019, was used to forecast monthly number of procedures performed in each category between January 2020 and June 2020. These forecasted models were compared with reported figures. RESULTS: A total of 108 169 procedures were performed between January 2020 and June 2020 based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule item numbers listed. There was a significant reduction (percentage change) in total procedures performed in April 2020 (-22.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -28.7% to -15.4%) and May 2020 (-33.2%, 95% CI: -37.5% to -28.3%). There was a significant reduction in oncological therapeutic, non-oncological therapeutic, and diagnostic procedures performed in April 2020 and May 2020 (p<0.05). These numbers did not include procedures performed in public sector. CONCLUSION: There was a significant reduction in total urological procedures (including diagnostic, oncological, and non-oncological) performed in months of April 2020 and May 2020 during time of federal restrictions. Both public and private healthcare sectors need to be supported in the upcoming months to prevent further delays in treatment and poorer clinical outcomes.

Primary Gleason grade and Gleason grade group at positive surgical margins: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of studies investigating the role of primary Gleason grade (PGG), Gleason score (GS) or Gleason grade group (GGG) at positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) and oncological outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published between 2005 and 2019 were included. The quality of the studies selected was assessed, and a protocol was registered and published in advance (PROSPERO: CRD42019131800). The primary outcome measure was BCR. Secondary outcome measures included cancer-specific survival, metastasis-free survival and overall mortality during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Our systematic search yielded 3116 unique results. Ten studies were selected for meta-analysis. The sample sizes of PSM cohorts varied from 200 to 956, while the median follow-up ranged from 1.5 to 13 years. Most studies used BCR as a surrogate marker for disease progression; only two studies reported other oncological outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed in selected groups (PGG, GS and GGG). PGG 4 or 5 at the PSM was found to be predictive of BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-2.02; P < 0.01). GGG > 1 at margin was also predictive of BCR compared to GGG 1 (GGG 1 vs 2: HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.6 -3.46; P < 0.001; GGG 1 vs 3: HR 3.95, 95% CI 1.82-8.57; P = 0.005; GGG 1 vs 4: HR 7.17, 95% CI 1.76-29.17; P = 0.006; and GGG 1 vs 5: HR 12.37, 95% CI 1.80-84.82; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Gleason score, PGG and GGG at the PSM are associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR. Longer-term studies are needed to investigate the utility of PGG, GS or GGG at the PSM in their ability to predict not only BCR but other outcomes such as cancer-specific survival, metastasis-free survival and overall survival.

Classification systems for anterior urethral stricture disease in men: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and explore the various classification systems that have been proposed for anterior urethral stricture disease (AUSD) and to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE databases with a search strategy created appropriately. Titles and abstracts of search results were screened by two authors and selected for full-text review. Studies exploring urethral stricture classification, clinical scoring or staging systems used in men over the age of 18 with benign anterior urethral stricture disease were included. RESULTS: The search identified 3113 articles, of which 10 were selected for inclusion after scrutiny. Four classification systems were identified. These include ULTRA score, urethral stricture score, cystoscopy-based staging system and Gombe Urethrographic score. These were based on various modalities, including cystoscopy, retrograde urethrogram (RUG) and sonourethrogram (SUG). From the scoring systems identified, the urethral stricture scoring system has multiple external validation studies and is predictive of operative complexity, operative time, recurrence and postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Several classification systems have been proposed for AUSD. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The urethral stricture score has been externally validated and shown to been predictive of surgical outcomes and recurrence. There are no scores that incorporate patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). Many classification systems have yet to provide sufficient external validation. Further external validation studies are needed before the general adoption of a particular system.

Does Gleason score of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy affect biochemical recurrence and oncological outcomes? Protocol for systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Positive surgical margins (PSM) in cancer patients are commonly associated with worse prognosis and a higher risk of secondary treatment. However, the relevance of this parameter in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, given the inconsistencies in its ability to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) and oncological outcomes. Hence, further assessment of the utility of surgical margins for prostate cancer prognosis is required to predict these outcomes more accurately. Over the last decade, studies have used the Gleason score (GS) of positive margins to predict outcomes. Herein, the authors aim to conduct a systematic review investigating the role of GS of PSM after radical prostatectomy in predicting BCR and oncological outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE databases. The review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will screen titles and abstracts to select articles appropriate for full-text review. Studies discussing GS of PSM after RP will be included. Given the change in reporting of GS, only articles from 2005 to 2019 will be included. The quality of the studies chosen will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa tool for non-randomised and Cochrane risk of bias for randomised control studies. We will adopt the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation framework to comment on quality of cumulative evidence. The primary outcome measure will be time to BCR. Secondary outcome measures include secondary treatment, disease-specific survival, disease progression-free and overall mortality at follow-up period. We aim to perform a meta-analysis if the level of heterogeneity is acceptable (I2 <50%). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review does not require ethics approval as it is a review of published literature. The findings of the review will be submitted for peer-reviewed publications and presented at scientific meetings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019131800.